Conservative Jabs at Romney Record (Writes A 28 Page Report On Romney!)

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's political record is relatively brief - four years as Massachusetts governor and a failed campaign for the U.S. Senate. That's enough, however, for Brian Camenker, a conservative gadfly and longtime thorn in Romney's side, to write a 28-page report that portrays Romney as sympathetic to gay rights and sexual behavior that clashes with his burnished image as a defender of traditional values.

Camenker's report, which has been making the rounds of conservative blogs and Web sites, threatens to undermine Romney's carefully crafted image, portraying him as far more liberal on social issues, particularly gay rights.

Detailed in the report, which includes five pages of footnotes and sources, are several mostly obscure incidents during Romney's four-year tenure as governor: a news release by a state advisory commission on gay youth, a proclamation hailing a gay pride parade, and distribution of a safe sex pamphlet, among others.

Romney's record on such touchstone social issues as homosexuality is crucial as he pitches himself to conservative Republican voters as a bulwark against gay marriage in the only state that allows same-sex marriage.

"The biggest problem is that Romney is so clearly and blatantly faking this. He's a fraud," Camenker said.

Romney's spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom dismissed Camenker's report, saying Romney governed as a "mainstream conservative."

"Politics has always had a fringe element," Fehrnstrom said. "We can't be distracted by those who scream and shout their opinion with a total disregard for the facts."

In a radio interview Wednesday, Romney said he was "wrong on some issues back then," and added: "If you want to know where I stand, by the way, you don't just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor."

Camenker agrees, but he offers a different take on that record. As an example, he points to a question on the Boy Scouts and gays that got minimal notice in a 1994 Senate debate between Romney and Democratic incumbent Edward M. Kennedy.

When asked about the Boy Scouts' ban on gays as scoutmasters, Romney - then a member of the group's executive board - initially defended the right of the Boy Scouts to set a tough policy. But he added: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

Last April, Camenker's group MassResistance pressured Romney to end a state advisory commission on gay youth after showing administration officials a news release on an annual parade featuring a cross-dressing master of ceremonies and embracing transgender teens.

Romney, who had signed a proclamation hailing the same parade in 2003, moved to kill the commission. The head of the commission said she received a call from Romney's chief of staff saying he had issued an executive order revoking the commission. Fehrnstrom later confirmed Romney considered the move but "thought that was too harsh."

Instead, Romney ordered the commission to focus on its original mission of suicide prevention among gay and lesbian teens. He eventually abolished it after state lawmakers created a similar commission out of his reach.

Camenker's report also takes Romney to task for not firing any state workers after a pamphlet called "The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century" was distributed at a high school conference on gay and lesbian issues.

The pamphlet, produced by the nonprofit AIDS Action Committee and discovered by Camenker's group, goes into graphic detail about safer sex practices. The pamphlet acknowledged the help of the state Department of Public Health, which was under Romney's control.

School officials said the pamphlet was intended for adults and was mistakenly made available at the event.

"We're not saying he wrote it or anything like that, but you would like to think that there would be a little more to get to the bottom of it and find out who had a hand in publishing something as horrible as that," Camenker said.

At the time, Romney distanced himself from the incident, saying that the state did not directly fund the booklet, and denounced the distribution of "graphic pornographic material on the gay lifestyle" in schools.

Another section of the report criticizes Romney for naming as his Transportation Secretary Daniel Grabauskas, who is gay and had previously been registrar of motor vehicles.

"Grabauskas, for example ... instituted a policy of placing a sex-change checkoff box on drivers license renewal forms," the report reads.

Amy Breton, a spokeswoman for the registrar, said the box was added over the objections of gay rights advocates as a law enforcement tool to help police verify gender when making arrests.

For his part, Romney has defended statements he's made in the past in support of gay rights.

"I don't think there's any conflict between feeling that all people deserve respect and tolerance and that discrimination is wrong and a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman," he said recently.

"He's been rock solid on the issue of marriage," said Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which pushed a proposed constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

But Camenker's report and other reports of pro-gay statements by Romney have struck a nerve with some conservatives.

"He does need to address better the comments he made in the past if he truly wants to court social conservatives," said Tom McClusky, spokesman for the conservative Family Research Council. "Too many people are going to be cynical and wonder if his actions are politically motivated."

Thank you. I've been holding out hope that I could be convinced that Romney had an ounce of conservatism to him, but this report proves that he's a distant second to liberal Rudy Giuliani when it comes to liberalism. Point is, just as Giuliani is far too liberal, so is Romney. McCain is a RINO nutjob and I won't ever vote for him either. If this is the cream of the crop, the Republican Party's traditional values are doomed. The party might regain a majority or keep the White House or whatever, but they'll have to sell their soul to do it. And what's the point of that beyond gaining power for power's sake.

""The biggest problem is that Romney is so clearly and blatantly faking this. He's a fraud," Camenker said.

That's a pretty big problem for a guy who expects to get conservative votes.

No thanks."

Camenker's not a serious social conservative hear, and gained reknown only after the Goodridge fiasco. His views on Romney are rejected by the wide majority of Massachusetts social conservatives.
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf

That's an open letter released yesterday from the absolute top tier of pro-family, Massachusetts social conservatives who wholly reject Camenker's characterizations.

because romney is a rino and shouldn't become president.

There's no use in being kind to a person who acts one way and governs another. They need to be exposed and removed from contention early so better candidates emerge.

The reason reason rudy, mcain and romney (the three rinos) get mention is that the liberal media wants to put them forward to keep a real conservative candidate from emerging.

That's an open letter released yesterday from the absolute top tier of pro-family, Massachusetts social conservatives who wholly reject Camenker's characterizations.

Wouldn't be the first time such a group was fooled by a snake-oil salesman. Having watched him run for office in 1994 from a front-row seat in Boston, I remain deeply unimpressed and suspicious of his bona fides. His positions conveniently reflect those of the voters he's courting and shift accordingly as he seeks a different office--as if by magic.

I continue to think of him as the Republican John Kerry. "I was FOR same sex marriage, before I voted against it."

I really do think a lot of it is that there's internal division between conservatives and Republicans proper. In other words, now one can be a conservative and not necessarily Republican, and vice-versa; whereas before, the two were so closely connected they were practically interchangeable.

The way I see it, we're still somewhat fractured into two main groups--on the one side we have those who've remained loyal to President Bush, the RNC, etc. and on the other are disgruntled and dissatisfied conservatives who, by the actions of the President and the RNC feel like they've been driven to either tow the line (e.g. supporting Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court and support for Bush's spending policies) or dissociate themselves with the Republican Party, and elected to do the latter. Thus costing us the margin we needed to win the last round of elections.

And now, we're finding that this division has had the effect of cutting one of the legs off a three-legged stool. I really do believe that now we as conservatives and Republicans are beginning to see that without the support of the other, none of us are going to win.

We need to unite if we're going to get anywhere, and the only way that will happen is if the Republican leadership takes the initiative, grows a definite spine, and seeks to return back to its conservative roots--even Reagan-era philosophy would work quite well. Which, IMHO, would give a lot of indie conservatives reason to come back into the fold.

In turn, the indie conservatives should be encouraged to give-and-take a bit as well and work with the Republican leadership. It is quite clear that both sides must be flexible if we're going to get back on track and keep our country rolling.

Whether we want to admit it or not is irrelevant. If we don't change and don't unite, it only emboldens all of our enemies. Any continued split (even if it's simply internal) is bad for us and good for the Dims--and we must simply work to patch it at all costs.

That's simply my .02...

Brin Camenker is a very serious guy, and he has been fighting the homosex agenda in MA for a long time now.
This Newsmax article tends to give the reader the idea that Camenker is some fringe crackpot. If you click on the Mass
Resistance link at the bottom of the article, you will be quite stunned to see what Camenker and his group have been up against. In particular, the Little Black Book. The last page is a listing of all Boston homosex bars that are very happy to serve liquor to 15 yr. old boys.

"That's an open letter released yesterday from the absolute top tier of pro-family, Massachusetts social conservatives who wholly reject Camenker's characterizations.

Wouldn't be the first time such a group was fooled by a snake-oil salesman. Having watched him run for office in 1994 from a front-row seat in Boston, I remain deeply unimpressed and suspicious of his bona fides. His positions conveniently reflect those of the voters he's courting and shift accordingly as he seeks a different office--as if by magic.

I continue to think of him as the Republican John Kerry. "I was FOR same sex marriage, before I voted against it.""

He was never for same-sex marriage. Get another tune. There's certainly room in Romney's past to accuse him of flip-flopping, including on other "gay" issues, but same-sex marriage isn't one of them.

It's certainly your right to reject Romney. I can't say I expect to convince you. But misrepresenting someone's record, as Camenker is clearly doing, and as is attested to by the social conservatives that Romney actually WORKED WITH in Massachusetts, deserves derision and condemnation. Especially when it's supported by such a poor understanding of a myriad of issues.

"Brin Camenker is a very serious guy, and he has been fighting the homosex agenda in MA for a long time now.
This Newsmax article tends to give the reader the idea that Camenker is some fringe crackpot. If you click on the Mass
Resistance link at the bottom of the article, you will be quite stunned to see what Camenker and his group have been up against. In particular, the Little Black Book. The last page is a listing of all Boston homosex bars that are very happy to serve liquor to 15 yr. old boys."

Brian Camenker is a one issue wonders who's assertions with regards to Romney have been rejected by the leaders of the top-tier of socially conservative groups in Massachusetts. He's not a bad man, but looking at the pro-family community as a whole, Camenker's position is very much in the minority in Massachusetts.

I think that it's much better to get all of the "pros" and "cons" of all of the Republican candidates for the '08 Presidency out in the open now. There's still plenty of time for the Republican Party to regain the support of a majority of voters before the November '08 elections, but the majority of conservatives must also "hold the Republican Party's feet to the fire" by helping them become again the "Party of Smaller Government", the "Party of Fiscal Discipline", and the "Party of Tax Reform" for now and for always! Also, the idea of the Republican Party being a "Big Tent" political party is profoundly harming the entire existence of the Republican Party!

And when Duncan Hunter doesn't win the nomination, what will you do then? Sit on your hands and curse the darkness? FreeRepublic is going to become either the place where people united FOR the Republican candidate in '08 whomever it is and AGAINST the Democrat candidate whomever she is, or it's going to become the haunt of the malcontent and the self-disenfranchised. It's still not clear which way this community will go. If it goes the latter direction and becomes a collection of self-righteous sore-losers, I hope it goes that way quickly, so I can get out of here and not waste my time in '08.

And when Duncan Hunter doesn't win the nomination, what will you do then? Sit on your hands and curse the darkness?

I'll weigh my options at that point. If the eventual nominee is a conservative, I'll do what I can to support him. If the nominee is a media-approved liberal, I'll probably look elsewhere for a candidate that hews closer to my beliefs.

I'm not married to the Republican Party. If the GOP goes liberal, they're telling me my issues aren't important to them. If that happens, you can bet a viable conservative party will emerge. There are just too many of us out there for it not to happen.

Romney is not qualified to be a Republican candidate for President, anymore so than JulieAnnie or McClown.

Knowing his father - one of the Rockefeller Republicans
that stabbed Goldwater in the back - its hard for me to believe he's any different - just like little Tommy Kean Junior and Tommy Kean Senior.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree and the Rockefeller "Republicans" were the first modern day cannibals who eat their own - ANYTIME A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN GETS NOMINATED. Check it out.

Is that quote taken from direct mail from the RNC to the conservative base of the party or did you just make it up yourself?

That comes straight from my heart.

It's only January 2007, but I'm really sick and tired of you "My-Way-or-the-Highway" types. You people want a "true conservative" (whatever that is). At a time of war, principally, I want a leader who will take the fight to the enemy, and has a chance of uniting the country. I see no one on the "true conservatives'" hotlist who comes close to having the leadership qualities of someone like Giuliani or Romney. I've been a conservative since my high school days when I cut my ideological teeth on Wm. F. Buckley and National Review. But my assessment is that the "true conservatives" should go off to a corner somewhere and figure out what it is you actually believe in, craft a vision for the 21st Century, and most of all, develop a new generation of leaders along the lines of Reagan.

Hear this: This back-biting "RINO"-labeling of everyone you disagree with is infantile at best, and in a time of war when the Democrats threaten to take over and plunge our nation into a new Dark Ages, the attitude of you "true believers" is unAmerican.

"I see no one on the "true conservatives'" hotlist who comes close to having the leadership qualities of someone like Giuliani or Romney. I've been a conservative since my high school days when I cut my ideological teeth on Wm. F. Buckley and National Review. "

Take a look at Hunter. Take a look at Gingrich.

Then take a close look at JulieAnnie's views and track record, and Mitty wafffling, and McCain's back-stabbing and loose cannoneering.

But my assessment is that the "true conservatives" should go off to a corner somewhere and figure out what it is you actually believe in, craft a vision for the 21st Century, and most of all, develop a new generation of leaders along the lines of Reagan.

That's your problem. We know what we believe in and we're sick of compromising our principles for some elusive electoral victory.

Here it is in black and white: I don't vote for liberals. If you want to support a liberal for the GOP nomination, be my guest. But you can do it yourself. I won't be a willing accomplice in the effort to turn the GOP into the Democrats-lite. If you can accomplish that on your own, then God bless you. But don't expect me to help you do something that is to the ultimate detriment of this country.

Electing liberals, even if they're Republicans, is NEVER the solution to any problem.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.